When Did Substitutionary Atonement Begin?

It is the claim of most evangelicals that “the gospel” or the object of our belief is contained in the theory of Substitutionary atonement. What we need to realize, however, is that whatever theory one uses for atonement, it is simply the mechanism by which the death of Jesus works toward our salvation, and that there are different ideas as to how this works. Good Christians disagree as to this mechanism-- in other words, there are different points of view. It is an error, then, to package the entirety of Christianity—the basis of one’s belief, the heart of the gospel—to be contained in a single theory of atonement. It is a mistake to teach unbelievers and new believers that this one theory is the entirety of the gospel, the focus of one’s belief. Why do I believe this?

For the next few post, I want to make clear that I am not attacking the theory of Substitutionary Atonement. Rather, I am making the claim that it is not exclusive and that it is not what we need to believe in for our salvation. My first point is historic:

The atonement theory stated in the last post has many names. It can be called the penal substitution atonement theory, the vicarious atonement theory and Anselm’s version of it is called the satisfaction theory. Although there were certain people who held to parts of the atonement, including Augustine (Fifth century) and Anselm (Eleventh century), the classic form was not taught as doctrine until well into the reformation period by Luther and Calvin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution)

This means that the far majority of Christians did not hold to this theory of atonement before the time of the reformation. This is true even if the Bible originally taught the substitution view-- most Christians throughout the history of the church held to a different view. And, in fact, a large portion of Christians —those of the Eastern Orthodox churches, for example— still do not hold to this view of the atonement.

While it is questionable whether the earliest Christians held to such a view, it is not questioned whether this view was held from the second century on—they most certainly did not. Thus, it cannot be held that one particular view of atonement must be the one that must be believed in for salvation, unless we are going to hold that the majority of believers in the past and a strong minority in the present didn’t have salvation because they didn’t hold to one theory of atonement.

This would mean that Francis of Assisi, Peter Waldo, Clare of Assisi, Aquinas, John Hus, John Wycliffe, as well as all the martyrs of the second century were not saved because they didn't believe in the right "gospel". Because they had no knowledge of the substitutionary atonement theory, but that most of them believed that Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan must we say that they didn't have true faith? That their suffering for the sake of Jesus was based on a false gospel?

Or should we say that it is enough for them to have believed that Jesus died for their sins, even if they didn't have all the details right? This seems more rational, and, as I will show, more biblical.